Landmark Forum's Internet Censorship Campaign Goes Down Under

There is a video that international self-help group the Landmark Forum really does not want anyone anywhere in the world to see, and it's misusing copyright law to make sure that happens. The latest target is Australia's Cult Awareness & Information Centre.

It all started in France, where French public television broadcast a documentary film entitled Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus), about the activities of Landmark Education, also known as the Landmark Forum or The Forum, in France.

When the video, which was critical of the Landmark Forum and included hidden camera footage from inside a French Landmark Forum event, appeared (with English subtitles) on popular US video sites Google Video, YouTube and the Internet Archive, Landmark used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get the video taken off the web and using the DMCA's expedited subpoena process to try to obtain identity of the anonymous uploaders. EFF responded on behalf of the Internet Archive and an uploader, and is in ongoing discussions with Landmark seeking a resolution.

Landmark's DMCA notices and subpoenas are misuse of the DMCA because Landmark has no valid copyright claim: Landmark didn't make the video, and the video only included hidden camera footage of a few minutes out of a three and a half day course - and the copyright registration cited isn't even for the course itself. To the extent that the documentary includes any materials copyrighted by Landmark, that use is clearly for purposes of criticism and commentary, i.e., a non-infringing fair use. (See pages 11-16 of our draft motion to quash Landmark's subpoenas). The DMCA's notice and takedown regime is designed for getting infringing works offline - not censorship of criticism. The French television station that broadcast the documentary has not objected to its appearance online.

Landmark goes Down Under after the jump

While Landmark's US DMCA campaign was ongoing, the controversial video remained available on the website of the Australian Cult Awareness & Information Centre. But this week, Landmark's Australian lawyers entered the picture with a cease and desist letter of their own, sent to CAIC's ISP StudioSolutions, and still asserting the same tired copyright claim. While Australian copyright law is different than the US, it doesn't give you a copyright on someone else's video.

The other day we received a letter from a lawyer in Amsterdam on behalf of his client, Landmark Education. Landmark Education requests that we immediately remove the link to the video in question because, they allege the documentary violates Landmark copyright by ?reproducing large portions of its copyrighted work, the Landmark Forum Manual.? The letter suggests that our link to the video encourages third parties to violate Landmark Education?s copyright.

The link in question was to the video on the CAIC website. Even assuming that every single document shown in the video was part of the Landmark Forum Manual (which is unlikely), all that is shown are a few isolated sentences and words, used to make commentary and criticism. Ultimately, the Apologetics Index concluded:

Since we are not convinced that Landmark?s claims regarding copyright violations are correct, we have not removed the link to the video from Apologetics Index.

In public statements, Landmark General Counsel Art Schreiber insists that Landmark supports free speech. We urge Landmark to take a stand for the principles of free expression and get out of the censorship racket--the answer to criticism is to explain and promote your own view. Landmark may believe that using copyright notices to takedown criticism is a winning formula, but it will ultimately come back to haunt Landmark.

Spanish version San Francisco—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and more than 70 human and digital rights groups called on Mark Zuckerberg today to add real transparency and accountability to Facebook’s content removal process. Specifically, the groups demand that Facebook clearly explain how much content it removes, both rightly...

A coalition of civil rights and public interest groups issued recommendations today on policies they believe Internet intermediaries should adopt to try to address hate online. While there’s much of value in these recommendations, EFF does not and cannot support the full document. Because we deeply respect these...

The free and open Internet has enabled disparate communities to come together across miles and borders, and empowered marginalized communities to share stories, art, and information with one another and the broader public—but restrictive and often secretive or poorly messaged policies by corporate gatekeepers threaten to change that. Content policies...

President Donald Trump and his lawyers still believe he can block people on Twitter because he doesn’t like their views, so today we’ve filed a brief telling a court, again, that doing so violates the First Amendment. We’re hopeful that the court, like the last one that considered...

EFF is introducing a new Coders' Rights project to connect the work of security research with the fundamental rights of its practitioners throughout the Americas. The project seeks to support the right of free expression that lies at the heart of researchers' creations and use of computer code to...

Journalists face increasingly hostile conditions covering public protests, presidential rallies, corruption, and police brutality in the course of work as watchdogs over government power. A case before the U.S. Supreme Court threatens press freedoms even further by potentially giving the government freer rein to arrest media people in...

Brazil’s federal elections are set for October 7, 2018, but the fear that “fake news” online might unfairly interfere with the electoral process has been looming over the country for far longer than this year’s campaign. In June, the President of the Superior Electoral Court declared such interference ...

There’s a lot of talk these days about “content moderation.” Policymakers, some public interest groups, and even some users are clamoring for intermediaries to do “more,” to make the Internet more “civil,” though there are wildly divergent views on what that “more” should be. Others vigorously oppose such moderation, arguing...

A federal court considering a challenge to the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, or FOSTA, dismissed the case on Monday.EFF and partner law firms filed a lawsuit in June against the Justice Department on behalf of two human rights organizations, a...